SOUTH BRONX,
SDNY, August 21 – With
Comptroller of the Currency
Joseph Otting moving to
undermine the US Community
Reinvestment Act, on August 21
he engaged in a cynical tour
of Jamaica, Queens with Rep.
Gregory Meeks while his OCC
was also refusing to consider
a CRA protest filed less than
30 days after People's Bank's
application was filed and
that, later, available. See
below.

Mere hours
after refusing to consider an
actual CRA comment, Otting
issued this: "Comptroller of
the Currency Joseph Otting
today participated in a tour
of New York neighborhoods to
see firsthand the success of
Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) activity and discuss how
CRA regulations can promote
more lending, investment, and
services, where they are
needed most. 'Here in
New York, we saw great
examples of community and bank
partnerships to conduct CRA
activity that helps meet
important needs of underserved
neighborhoods,' Comptroller
Otting said following the
tour. 'We also discussed
challenges communities,
advocates, and bankers face in
lending, investing, and
providing services that can be
addressed in part by
modernizing CRA regulations.'"
This is fraud.

In June
2019 Otting denied access to
documents about whom he meets
with which Inner City Press
requested back in January
2019. This while he had made
the OCC start rejecting timely
CRA comments on mergers and on
Fifth Third's lateral move to
the less regulated OCC
charter, asserting that he has
unfettered discretion to
consider such comments.

Now it
gets worse - Otting is citing
a 30 day comment period as a
basis to refuse to consider
comments even when by his own
OCC's letter it was timely,
less than thirty said. Inner
City Press / Fair Finance
Watch was sent this by the OCC
on August 21: "People’s United
Bank, National Association,
Bridgeport, Connecticut filed
its Application with the CCC
on July 18, 2019, and
published its first public
notice of the application on
July 17, 2019. The 30-day
public comment period ended on
August 15, 2019. The 0CC made
information concerning the
application publicly available
in the July 20, 2019 Weekly
Bulletin and, on July 23,
2019, posted the public
portion of the application to
the OCC’s Freedom of
Information Act Electronic
Reading Room. Your comment was
submitted on August l6,
following the close of the
comment period on August 1 As
a result, the comment was not
timely and the OCC will not
consider this comment in its
review of the pending
application." Do the math.
Then impeach Otting.

On August
15-16, Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch, less than 30
days after the application was
filed, submitted this to the
OCC including its Barry Wides
in DC: "August 15-16,
2019

This is a timely
first comment opposing and
requesting an extension of the
OCC's public comment period on
the Application by People's
United Bank to acquire United
Bank.
The OCC states that "when a
public notice is published,
the public has 30 days to
submit a written comment to
the OCC." See here.
This comment is timely. While
the "public" notice in the
Hartford Courant is behind
paywall - we are noting that
for the record, to be acted on
by the OCC like its now
routine late updating of its
online Weekly Bulletins -
dispositively, the OCC web
site says "Filing
Status:
Action Date Receipt
2019-07-18." July 18 plus 30
days is August 17. Even if one
ignores the filing date for
comment period start date,
July 17, plus 30 days is
August 16. This comment is
timely.

Add to the above,
for the record, that the OCC
under Comptroller Otting has
reversed years of OCC
precedent and refused FOIA fee
waivers for copies of the
application to comment on.
This comment is timely,and the
lawless policy reversal(s)
must be
reversed.

People's United
is getting worse and
worse.
In the the New York City MSA
in 2017, the most recent year
for which HMDA data is
publicly available - the
comment period should be
extended until the delayed
2018 data is available -
People's United made 83 home
purchase loans to whites, only
seven to Latinos and only FOUR
to African Americans. Its
denial rate for African
Americans was 2.81 times
higher than for whites - worse
than its peers, by far. This
comment is timely, an
evidentiary hearing is needed;
on the current record the
application should be
denied.
For refinance loans in the New
York City MSA in 2017,
People's United made 85 loans
to whites, only five to
Latinos and only six to
African Americans. This
is systematic redlining; this
proposed acquisition could not
legitimately be approved and
People's United should be
referred for prosecution for
redlining by the Department of
Justice and
CFPB.
People's United record is
hardly sufficient in the
Hartford MSA where it now
proposes to acquire United
Bank. In 2017 in the Hartford
MSA, People's United made 139
home purchase loans to whites
and only 10 to African
Americans and only five to
Latinos. Its denial rate for
African Americans was a
whopping 4.71 times higher
than for whites - worse than
its peers, by
far. Again,
this is systematic redlining;
this proposed acquisition
could not legitimately be
approved and People's United
should be referred for
prosecution for redlining by
the Department of Justice and
CFPB.

See also, for the
record, "People’s United Bank
is growing, but at the expense
of branches and possibly
jobs. The
Bridgeport-based subsidiary of
People’s United Financial is
looking to acquire the parent
company to United Bank in
Hartford for roughly $759
million by the end of the
year, and executives have
confirmed that the merger
would result in cuts.
“There is a lot of overlap,
and we’ve done quite a bit of
homework and due diligence
already, but we will finish
that work with the United
(Bank) team and we will make
decisions about which will
close,” People’s United CEO
Jack Barnes
said.
In this context, the comment
period should be extended so
that public evidentiary
hearings can be held, and the
application should be denied."
Watch this site.

Now in a
promotional brochure about his
attack on CRA, Otting has
misstated what the CRA statute
says, and significantly so.
His brochure said that the law
requires the regulators to
"consider the CRA RATING in
connection with certain
licensing applications."
Uploaded by Inner City Press
on Scribd here.

In
fact, the
process is
that CRA
issues are
considered on
merger and
charter
conversion and
other
applications,
not just
ratings. That
is a safe harbor, something
repeatedly considered, fought
off and rejected. Now
fraudulent comment generator
Otting is simply changing the
law. We'll have more on this.
And on this:

On August 9
Otting issued an Orwellian
summary of a visit to Atlanta
ostensibly to help the CRA be
more transparent: "WASHINGTON
— Comptroller of the Currency
Joseph Otting, today visited
Atlanta to tour neighborhoods
that have benefitted from
activities encouraged by the
Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) and areas that could
benefit from additional CRA
activity. “Today, we saw
what great things can be
accomplished when banks, civil
rights organizations,
nonprofit groups, and local
advocates work together to
meet the needs of their
communities,” Comptroller
Otting said following the
tour. “We also discussed how
current CRA regulations
hamstring efforts that could
revitalize these areas and
bring even more lending,
investment, and service to
where they are needed
most.” The Comptroller
was joined on the tour by John
Hope Bryant, CEO and Founder
of Operation HOPE, Ambassador
and former Atlanta Mayor
Andrew Young, and
representatives from area
community groups,
redevelopment organizations,
and banks. The group began
their tour of Atlanta from the
Martin Luther King Sr.
Community Resources
Collaborative and visited a
HOPE Inside office at [a
shopping center]... “The
places we visited today
confirm how CRA has been a
force for good for the past 40
years,” the Comptroller said.
“Our goal now is to strengthen
CRA so that it continues to
encourage the flow of billions
of dollars into our
communities and neighborhoods
each year. We can modernize
CRA regulations to encourage
banks to do even more by
clarifying what counts for CRA
credit, updating where
activity qualifies, making
evaluations of bank CRA
performance more objective,
and reporting results in a
more timely and transparent
manner.” More
transparent? From a man who
withholds all his information,
after generating fake comments
to support the cash out merger
of One West when he ran it?
And which unnamed banks were
along on this tour?

After
first denying a Freedom of
Information Act fee waiver for
these documents, and now for
all bank merger applications
is obvious retaliation, on
June 20 the OCC wrote to Inner
City Press:

"Dear Mr.Lee:
This is in response to your
letter dated January 16, 2019,
which was received in my
office on January 17, 2019 for
processing under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552. You requested
copies of records sufficient
to show all of Comptroller
Otting's scheduled meetings,
appointments, and scheduled
events from the date he became
Comptroller to the date of
your response including but
not limited to Outlook
calendar entries and daily
briefing books for Comptroller
Otting on those dates. You
seek records of any kind,
including paper records,
electronic records,
audiotapes, videotapes,
photographs, data, and
graphical material. Our
determination concerning your
request is as follows:

1. Mr. Otting’s
Calendar is published on the
OCC’s Website in the
Electronic Reading Room
located at www.occ.gov.
Certain entries have been
deleted under the authority of
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) and 12
C.F.R. (b)(2), related solely
to the internal personnel
rules and practices of an
agency which covers
confirmation numbers, ticket
numbers, dialin numbers and
PIN codes for telephone
conferences; 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(5) and 12 C.F.R.
4.12(b)(5) inter-agency or
intra-agency memorandums or
letters which would not be
available by law to a party
other than an agency in
litigation with the agency
which are considered
deliberative in nature; 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(6) and 12 C.F.R.
4.12(b)(6), personnel and
medical files and similar
files the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy which covers
personal, non-government
issued telephone cell phone
numbers; and, 5 U.S.C. 552
(b)(8) and 12 C.F.R.
4.12(b)(8), contained in or
related to examination,
operating, or condition
reports prepared by, on behalf
of, or for the use of an
agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of
financial institutions;.
2. Briefing books or materials
submitted to the Comptroller
in preparation for meetings
appearing on his calendar and
are marked “MATERIALS
ATTACHED” are withheld under
the authority of 5 U.S.C.
552(b)(5) and 12 C.F.R.
4.12(b)(5) inter-agency or
intraagency memorandums or
letters which would not be
available by law to a party
other than an agency in
litigation with the agency,
which is consistent with
Department of Justice policy.
3. The OCC does not capture
audiotapes or videotapes of
meetings.
4. Telephone messages made to
the Comptroller are also not
captured.
5. The OCC does not maintain
transcripts.
6. Handwritten notes are not
maintained by the Comptroller
or the OCC. 7. The OCC does
not sweep the personal email
accounts of its
employees.
8. A Vaughan index is not
required to be produced at the
administrative level of
processing FOIA requests.

Once you have
reviewed the calendars for Mr.
Otting and have identified
specific topics you you’d like
to review, please submit a
targeted FOIA request and we
will once again search our
records. Please note that you
requested a fee waiver that I
denied. This was because
the basis for your fee waiver
did not constitute an official
reason as set forth in our
regulations to justify a fee
waiver. Upon receive a
request for possibly vast
amounts of data, you need to
adequately justify any such
request for a fee
waiver. Due to the
volume of requests the OCC is
now receiving, each request
for a fee waiver is being
scrutinized very closely and
such waivers are not
automatic.
Additionally, keep in mind
that the less targeted a FOIA
request is, and the possible
large amount of data that must
be gathered and reviewed, the
less likely a request for
expedited processing will be
granted. It is just
physically impossible."

Impossible for an ex-banker
turned regulator, gone rogue.
Otting has also denied access
to documents about the
application to the OCC for
WSFS to acquire Beneficial
Bank and close 25 branches.
Inner City Press requested the
records months ago, along with
a request for a waiver of fees
as the other Federal bank
regulators grant it and as the
OCC has until now.

But Otting
is different. First he denied
a fee waiver on Inner City
Press' request for his
calendar. Then he relented on
that, after Inner City Press
citing case law and precedent.
But seemingly in retaliation,
he has denied access to a
merger application subject to
public comment. Denial here
on Scribd.

And now,
dated June 11 but e-mailed
later, a final denial, after
putting Inner City Press
through three rounds of more
and more detailed
argumentation - just to waste
its time until long after
Otting rubber stamped the
merger - accusing Inner City
Press of not "explaining how
the application submitted by
WSFS would contribute
significantly to the public’s
understanding of the
operations or activities of
the OCC. As such, your request
for a fee waiver is denied.
Until you contact the OCC
Disclosure Services office
with assurance that you will
pay associated fees, FOIA
request # 2019-00206 will not
be processed."

So the OCC
thinks it can hinder public
review and public comment by
changing the law and its own
pre-Otting practice.

On 1 June
2019 the most recent OCC
Weekly Bulletin of bank merger
applications on which the
comment periods are 30 days is
from May 4. Inner City Press
tweeted photo here.
That is to say, the
applications are being hidden
until the comment period
closes.But we'll have more on
this, now that Otting's OCC
has fully shown itself.

Ironically
the grounds cited for the FOIA
fee waiver denial is that
releasing this information
about a merger subject to
public comment would not
increase the public's
understanding. This shows
Otting contempt for CRA - and
for the public. Now it's ever
worse. His claim is that while
he might have to wave fees for
OCC document, he can withhold
/ hinder the release of the
bank's underlying application.
But how can the public access
what his OCC does on the
application, without seeing
the application? In a Friday
afternoon dump on May 17 this
came in from the OCC: "Mr.
Lee, I am writing to
follow-up on the FOIA Appeal
you submitted regarding the
fee waiver denial for request
2019-00206-F. In the
denial, Mr. Frank Vance
identified his concern about
lack of information for the
third public interest factor –
contribution to public
understanding. However,
on appeal, I am providing you
an opportunity to address the
first factor – how the
requested records specifically
concern identifiable
operations or activities of
the government and the second
factor – how the requested
records are likely to
contribute to an understanding
of specific government
operations or
activities. In your
appeal you assert that
disclosure of the information
sought will document and
reveal the activities of the
federal government, including
how the OCC reviews CRA and
branch closing aspects of the
merger between WSFS and
Beneficial. However, the
records you requested are for
the withheld portions of the
application filed by
WSFS. Your request does
not seek any records of OCC
action before or after
receiving the WSFS
application. See
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Reno,
No. 00-0723, 2001 WL 1902811,
at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2001)
(upholding agency's assessment
of fees, reasoning that while
agency's response to citizen
letters regarding Cuban emigré
Elian Gonzales would likely
contribute to understanding of
agency actions, incoming
citizen letters to agency on
that topic do not).
Emphasis added to DOJ
summary. If you would
like to supplement your appeal
with additional information
that demonstrates how the WSFS
application itself contributes
significantly to public
understanding about the
operations or activities of
the OCC, please do so." We'll
have more on this. Inner City
Press initially filed this
appeal with Otting, et al.:

"Dear Comptroller
Otting:

Inner City Press
traditionally has received fee
waivers from the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency
under 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 12
C.F.R. § 4.17. Waivers were
granted on the basis of
similar or identical language
contained in the instant
Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request, which is now
the subject of OCC’s waiver
rejection. Outrageously, on
Inner City Press' FOIA request
for the portions of the WSFS -
Beneficial merger application
that the applicants
unilaterally requested
confidential treatment for,
your FOIA Manager Frank Vance
writes:

"Concerning
the third consideration,
contribution to public
understanding, we examined
whether or not disclosure of
the requested records would
contribute to the
understanding of the public at
large, as opposed to the
understanding of the requester
or a small number of
interested persons. In
other words, we considered
whether or not you
demonstrated how contribution
to public understanding
outweighs personal benefit to
you. I find that you did
not demonstrate this
component; therefore, you did
not satisfy the regulatory
requirement of 12 C.F.R.
4.17(b)(4)(i). In light
of this, there is no need to
analyze your justification
with respect to 12 C.F.R.
4.17(b)(4)(ii).
"

So you are
claiming that the public is
not interested in, and should
be constrained in access, the
bank merger applications on
which the public has a right
to comment. You are claiming
that to get any OCC review of
the often outrageously
overbroad requests for
confidential treatment of the
banks you supervise, the
public has to pay untold fees.
This is a new low, and Inner
City Press is
appealing.
Inner City Press Is Eligible
for a Fee
Waiver
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A)(iii) and 12
C.F.R. § 4.17, Inner City
Press is eligible for, and
requests, a waiver of fees
associated with processing its
request for records. The
subject of this request—the
review of a merger to close at
least 25 bank branches --
concerns the operations of the
federal government, and the
disclosures will likely
contribute to a better
understanding of relevant
government procedures by the
general public in a
significant way. Moreover, the
request is primarily and
fundamentally for
non-commercial
purposes.
Inner City Press requests a
waiver of fees because
disclosure of the requested
information is “in the public
interest because the
disclosure . . . [i]s likely
to contribute significantly to
public understanding” of
government operations or
activities.

Specifically,
the disclosure of the
information sought under this
request will document and
reveal the activities of the
federal government, including
how your OCC reviews the CRA
and branch closing aspects of
the
merger.
As discussed below, Inner City
Press has both the ability and
the intention to effectively
convey the information it
receives to the
public.
Inner City Press does not have
a commercial interest in the
requested information. This
request is primarily and
fundamentally for
non-commercial purposes. Inner
City Press does not have a
commercial purpose and the
release of the information
requested is not in its
financial interest. Inner City
Press’s mission is to engage
in cutting-edge investigative
reporting focused, fair
lending, development, and
government accountability
advocacy. Core to its mission
is to educate the public about
government activities and to
ensure the accountability of
government officials. Inner
City Press uses the
information gathered, and its
analysis of it, to educate the
public through reports, press
releases, or other media. It
also makes materials it
gathers available on its
public website and promotes
their availability on social
media platforms. Inner City
Press has demonstrated its
commitment to the public
disclosure of documents and
creation of editorial content.
For example, Inner City
Press’s website contains
dozens of articles describing
the operations of the federal
government from a unique
perspective, including about
the OCC: In
SDNY FreddieMac Via FHFA of
Otting Says Its Negligent
Late Objection Is Fine As
Otting Lawless

Inner City Press’s website
contains many more examples
demonstrating its ability and
intention to inform the public
about government activities,
including specifically related
to how the subject of the
instant FOIA request spent his
time at
OCC.
Accordingly, Inner City Press
qualifies for a fee
waiver.

Significantly,
well before this outrageous
denial which now longer keeps
secret the requested
documents, even the OCC wrote
"your correspondence of March
8 is more robust and sets
forth with reasonable
specificity the grounds to
justify the OCC's granting of
the fee waiver. Therefore,
your request for a fee waiver
with respect to FOLA request
2019-00104 is granted. The
OCC's Disclosure Services
office will remove the matter
from "Hold" status and proceed
to process the
request."

Of course, even
in that case [about your /
Otting's schedule] in the two
month since our letter we have
not received a single document
from your
OCC.

There can be no
doubt that Inner City Press
qualifies for a waiver based
on the foregoing. Moreover,
Inner City Press’s long track
record of fee waivers is
further evidence of our
current eligibility. In
particular, we have
demonstrated repeatedly our
intent and ability to inform
the public about government
operations and that our
requests for information are
not primarily in our
commercial
interest.

We find your
OCC's FOIA and other practices
outrageous and demand
expeditious ruling on this
appeal and release of the
already long delayed
documents.
Matthew Lee, Esq., Executive
Director Inner City Press /
Fair Finance Watch." Watch
this site.

Otting has
been sued again for offering a
CRA-lax fintech bank charter.
The lawsuit, filed September
14 by the New York State
Department of Financial
Services, says Otting "puts
New York financial
consumers—and often the most
vulnerable ones—at great risk
of exploitation by
federally-chartered entities
improperly insulated by New
York law. The OCC’s reckless
folly should be stopped." It's
Vullo v Office
of the
Comptroller of
the Currency,
18-cv-8377,
U.S. District
Court,
Southern
District of
New York. On
May 2, SDNY Judge Victor
Marrero allowed DFS' suit to
go forward. He wrote, "As a
result of the Fintech Charter
Decision, New York State's
regulations for over "600
non-bank financial services
firms" are all at risk of
becoming null and void.
(Complaint ~ 10.) Of course,
certain steps, namely the
application for, and then the
granting of, an SPNB charter
must occur before a fintech
firm can flout New York's
laws. But those steps do not
stymie DFS's standing. For
both steps, DFS benefits from
the supposition that the
government enforces and acts
on its recent, non-moribund
laws. See Hedges v. Obama, 724
F.3d 170, 19 7 ( 2d Cir. 2
013) . Specifically, DFS
alleges that OCC has invited
fintech companies to its
offices to discuss SPNB
charters, potentially
indicating at least some
demand for, and interest in,
such charters." Sounds like
Otting, the secret meetings of
the type the OCC has YET to
disclose in response to Inner
City Press' FOIA request which
was delayed by the OCC
disputing fee waivers as it
never had before, We'll have
more on this. The OCC's
spokesman Bryan
Hubbard had
said
the agency "is confident in
its authority to grant
national bank charters
including special purpose
national bank charters to
companies that are engaged in
the business of banking, meet
the qualifications for
becoming a national bank, and
apply to conduct business as
part of the federal banking
system. The agency will
vigorously defend that
authority, but will not
comment on pending or
potential litigation.” Otting,
as we've noted, as a pre-OCC
history of generating dubious
comment supporting mergers
like his OneWest with CIT.

***

Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540

Search
innercitypress.com Search
WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.